Sly_Wizard

How is the theory of evolution not a cogent argument against the theory of creationism, given the weight of empirical evidence behind it? I am totally going to direct you towards the 19th century with the advent of theistic evolution which stated that there was nothing fundamentally conflicting with the theory of evolution in relation to the Bible (Of course, the Catholics were late to the party as even in 1931 they still held the view that the theory of evolution was incompatible with the Bible in relation to man. It was okay to believe that plants and animals evolved, though). And, before you come out and say it, creationism =/= ID.

Okay. Let's try this another way. How about this statement? "Atheism is tantamount to communism." Just because you don't understand what it means, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Edit: Like I said earlier, Richard Dawkins is an idiot because he can't form one, just one, cogent argument against religion and God. His entire argument is as such ---> "You're an idiot if you believe in God. And only because I say so." But, hey, since you don't see anything wrong with that, then you shouldn't have any problem with my above statement ;)

lol @ the whole "encouraging people to think for themselves" line. If you're into the whole "thinking for yourselves" thing, then why are you still using arguments some Greek guys (Mainly Lucretius and Democritus) thought up over 2,000 years ago? #-o D'oh! And this is why I stand by comment that Richard Dawkins is an idiot. A monkey makes more sense than he does.

Last I checked, I could have sworn one of the rallying cries of the, for lack of better words, non-religious were that the religious should keep their views to themselves. Doing something because another group does something even though you hate it when they do that something doesn't bode well for your group. But, hey, whatever floats your boat. I still don't care. You are aware Humanists are religious themselves, aren't you? They just don't believe in a God... Ooo... Semantics. Well, normally I'd play this game, but if you looked at my post I specifically said 'for lack of better words'. Now, if you have better words, then substitute them for 'non-religious' :P

Last I checked, I could have sworn one of the rallying cries of the, for lack of better words, non-religious were that the religious should keep their views to themselves. Doing something because another group does something even though you hate it when they do that something doesn't bode well for your group. But, hey, whatever floats your boat. I still don't care.

Becoming the very thing you seemingly hate? Priceless. What? Where did I say I hate religion? I didn't say you hated religion? Becoming the very thing you seemingly hate? Priceless. A pompous student calling an honorary professor of the University of Oxford, member of the royal literary society, author of a science book selling 1.5 million copies translated to over 30 languages an idiot? Priceless. RD is an idiot not because I say he is, but because he knows little to nothing about religion yet acts as if he does. No. Seriously. He's a hell of a scientist, but an abysmal theologian. And it's funny because, being at Oxford, he's literally a stone's throw away from some of the manuscripts upon which the NT is based yet he denies the authenticity/reliability of (Among other things, of course). Late edit: And I'm not a student anymore. Haven't been for a while now :P

Becoming the very thing you seemingly hate? Priceless.

Religion gets in the way of what? And I don't care. And Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

The British? Fair? Mercantilism anyone. Bankrupting it's colonies while profiting at the same time wasn't "fair" by any definition of the word. Anywho, if you have the money to buy ten GS's an hour and the ability to merchant them, why shouldn't you be allowed to? No one can give me any valid reason as to why it's wrong.

Nice, stable relationship, I take it. :P About as stable as the ground at the mouth of an active volcano. Anywho, I got bored, so I took it. The only thing I disagree with is the paranoid part. I'm not paranoid. At all. Oh, and I'm not really anti-social, either. Disorder-Rating Paranoid: Moderate Schizoid: Moderate Schizotypal: Moderate Antisocial: High Borderline: Low Histrionic: High Narcissistic: High Avoidant: High Dependent: Low Obsessive-Compulsive: Low

I don't feel like taking this test, 'cuz I alrady know I'm screwed up. It's not gonna' tell me anything I don't know. And, for what it's worth, Iknow for a fact my ex has BPD and HPD, maybe even BD with mass amounts of paranoia thrown in.

I'm gonna' step in a provide a brief lesson on logic for a moment. "Humans have lungs. Lungs are necessary for breathing on land. Therefore, humans can breathe on land." is a logically valid argument. "Fish have Christmas trees. Christmas trees are necessary for breathing on land. Therefore, fish can breathe on land." is also a logically valid argument. Why? Because logic is only concerned with how an argument is formed (If the conclusion follows from the premises), not whether an argument is actually right or wrong. It'd help it people actually understood that before using the word logic.

No one's going to fight you if you slap on a PP the moment someone attacks you/you attack someone. It's a waste of time.

Go to the update page and read what it says about how drops are calculated. I read it the first day. It was my understanding that the more you risk and the longer you stayed out of a "safe area" the better your chances for a good drop. But what I don't understand is how you go from Torag's plate and legs to a couple of mind runes and tuna. That doesn't make any sense. At the very least I was expecting to get what he was wearing.

Ugh... Small rant. I killed someone wearing Torag's plate and legs. I was expecting to, you know, get a drop which included Torag's plate and legs, but instead I got some tuna and mind runes. What's up with that? ...That... Is a rip, to say the least.

Don't fall for lures then. Really, my only complaint is the massive clans (Already died once from them), but the lesson there is to stay away from multi -.-

I remember why I hated PK'ing now. Ah well... I can't complain too much. This is light years better than BH :thumbsup:

So... I got attacked the moment I logged into a PVP world, even though Jagex said you wouldn't. And then I got attacked whilst in a bank. Gj, Jagex.

People who are against the bill amuse me. Most like to use the "I don't want to pay " without realizing 1.) Very few people were complaining when they were reaping the benefits of the government's/Wall Street's/the bank's mismanagement of capital and 2.) the plan is better than standing in line for 14 hours just so you can get a piece of bread and soup, which is what will happen if nothing is done.

I'll be truthful. I'd try ice cream made with human breast milk.

Okay. Let's try this again. Your original statement was that people are born gay. I said they weren't after which you (Not you, specifically) tried to shift the burden of proof onto me. After I wouldn't have any of it, telling you that since you made the positive assertion, you have to prove it , you changed your original statement to "People don't choose to be gay" (Which is a rewording of your original statement. If you're born gay it's not a choice). Well, guess what? Nothing's changed. Simply because you can play semantics doesn't shift the burden of proof. You're the one making the initial claims. All claims I make follow from the claims you make. No matter how you try to word them, you still have to prove them.

The problem you have is that responses such as "People aren't born gay!" or "It's a choice!" are responses to the people who use the inverse arguments-- Not the other way around. These rebuttals only began appearing when people began using the arguments which begat (sp?) them. It's similar to how theists bring up people such as Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot when atheists mention Hitler. Cause then effect, not effect then cause. You can't bring up an argument, and when someone says that your claim isn't true ask them to prove it. It's disingenuous. The onus is on you to prove that gay people were, indeed, born gay. Not on someone else to prove that they aren't. Simply because you can reword the argument and play a game of semantics doesn't change the burden of proof. It's akin to me, instead of asking you to prove that God doesn't exist, asking you to prove that no God exists.

I just realized you're arguing U.K. law while I'm arguing U.S. law. Therefore, I'm gonna' skip all of your "There should be a seperate kind of marriage" parts 'cuz I don't have a problem with that. I don't know where you're getting your reports regarding Russia, because 63% is quite high. Most estimates run the number of irreligious people in Russia runs up to about 50%'ish of the population (Depending on the study). And who the hell mentioned the Poles? I sure as hell didn't. Good thing I didn't say that, huh? Silly me. And here I thought representatives were people. :wall: Anywho, aside from the grievous error on your part, I suppose you've never heard of referendums? No, but this way was easier. Didn't have to click on anything (: O RLY? I challenge you-- In fact, I double dare you-- To find where I said anything of the sort. I'll be waiting (: All right. Let's go back, shall we? I don't recall who said it, but someone said that he believes homosexuality (Or was it gay marriage? I forgot) was wrong but himself had gay friends. You turned around and tried to pull a straw man. I showed up and said, in reference to the first post, that hating an action does not equate to hating the person and that asserting as much is to pull a straw man. You then tried to call me ignorant for reasons unknown. And here we are. The corollary to the argument you just quoted. LOL! See, you constantly go off on tangents regarding things no one mentioned. The only thing in that jumbled mess which I did say was that no one is born gay. And, before you go on about how I have to prove it, I don't. "No one is born gay" is the negative assertion to the line "People are born gay", and the onus is on you to prove the positive assertion; not for me to prove the negative assertion. LOL x2! That's really not what I said at all, nor the argument I made, so would you care to try again? It's not on me to do so. You're the one making the positive assertion that people are born gay, so you have to prove it. Scientifically speaking, this is the way things work. You can't say that people are born gay, and when someone says they aren't demand that they prove it. It's akin to me saying aliens exist, and when you say they don't exist asking you to prove that they don't exist. It's pointless and mind-numbingly complex to even try to do so. *See above* LOL x3! I don't really even know what to say here. Now you're arguing against conservatism? Liberalism run amok.

It's not a cop-out. If you were to leave the comfort of your home and travel to, say, Russia or China or even Japan (Places with an even less tolerance of gays than the U.S.), the entire "seperation of church and state" argument wouldn't hold valid in those places mainly because the majority of the population is irreligious (In the Western sense, at least). The fact of the matter is, unless a law exists which bans gay marriage explicitly on account of religious beliefs, you cannot use the "seperation of church and state" argument as you wouldn't be arguing against the seperation of church and state, but rather against people's personal convictions. And there is no law stating that people cannot vote, or even enact laws, according to their own personal convictions (Otherwise, you'd be living in a totalitarian state, and I know how much you'd hate that)-- Only that the government cannot enact a law promoting one religion over another. By their very nature, a government is going to have laws with coincide with some religious ideal. A government which has laws which doesn't is either non-functional or non-existant. I don't know what country you live in, but last I checked anyone can marry anyone so long as you have the (State) license to do so. No, it's the exact same thing only you tried to word it differently. Okay. Fine. Show me the law which bans gay marriage on account of religious beliefs. The only place you're going to find said laws are in the Middle East. They don't exist in any (To my knowledge) Western country. Oh! And I believe I said this earlier, but if marriage is a contract then it becomes subject to regulation by the local government, meaning each state can decide who can and cannot enter into that specific contract (Unless Federal law overrides it). Not terribly. *Sigh* 1.) That isn't what I said. I said hating one's actions does not equate to hating the person. Since you used the term earlier, I'll use it again. That's called a strawman and is a blatant misrepresentation of a person's actual position. Holding the belief that homosexuality is wrong does not equate to hating gay people anymore than thinking homosexuality is wrong equates to hating all black people because some black guy happens to be gay. 2.) No one is born gay. No one is naturally inclined to be gay. The corollary also holds true. Oh, and before I forget, I'd better add this in. Few people, if any, care what two people do in their own bedroom. The problem is that marriage is not something confined to the bedroom. It's a public affirmation of two people's relationship (Or whatever you want to define what they're doing as). When something stops being a private matter and creeps into the public eye, then people begin to care.

I'm fairly sure I responded to this thread before... Anywho... I'm unaware of any law which bans gay marriage on the account that it violates some religious principle (At least, not in the West) insomuch as it violates people's personal convictions regarding what should be right or wrong. And for as long as people can decide what should be legal based on what they feel as right and wrong, then the argument regarding the separation of church and state becomes moot because it's a non-factor. As it stands, using the argument for the seperation of church and state is a subtle way of saying that people should believe what you believe is right, not what they believe is right. ...And, for the record, if you're going to argue that marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, then I'd like to point out to you that contractual law states that the state (Or Federal government) has the final sayso when it comes to regulating who can enter a contract and for what reasons. Simply because two people consent to enter into a contract doesn't mean they can/should be allowed to do so. Hating someone's actions does not equate to hating someone as a person.